Date of
Judgment: June 28, 1974
Issuing
Authority: Supreme Court
Level of
the Issuing Authority: Final Instance
Type of
Procedure: Judicial
(Civil)
Subject
Matter: Patents (Inventions)
Main
text of the judgment (decision):
1. The jokoku appeal shall
be dismissed.
2. The jokoku appellant
shall bear the cost of the jokoku appeal.
Reasons:
Concerning
the first and the second grounds of the jokoku appeal by jokoku appellant
attorneys YAMANE Atsushi, SHIMOIIZAKA Tsuneyo, ARANAGA Iwao, and EBIHARA
Motohiko:
Because patent rights are provided to
novel and industrial inventions, the part of an invention, publicly known at
the time of the invention, is not a novel invention, so, when the scope of the
technology of a certain patented invention is determined, novel technological
ideas should be clarified by excluding the part publicly known at the time of
the invention. (See Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Second Chamber, decided
on 1962.12.7, Minshu Vol. 16, NO.12, Page 2321, and Judgment of the Supreme
Court, the Third Chamber, 1964.8.4, Minshu Vol.18, No.7, Page 1319). The facts
approved by the original instance that the technical ideas had been publicly
known prior to the filing of this patent application cannot be persuaded
comparing to the evidence approved at the original instance on the issues
claimed by the jokoku appellants. Thus, the judgment of the original instance
about the argument by jokoku appellant is correct and should be affirmed. There
is no illegality in the judgment of the original instance. The jokoku
appellants argue in their original view and criticize the approval of evidence
and the recognition of facts, which were the privileges of the original
instance. Therefore, the their arguments cannot be accepted.
Concerning
the Third and the Sixth grounds:
The approved facts, regarding the
purpose, structure, and functional efficiency of the patent invention at issue
and the jokoku appellee’s product, can be persuasive comparing to the evidence
raised in the original instance. Under these approved facts, there are
differences in the structure and the functional efficiency between the jokoku
appellee’s product and patent invention at issue. Thus, the original instance
will have correctly decided that the jokoku appellee’s product is not included
in the technological scope of the patent invention at issue. There is no
illegality in the original instance, and the jokoku appellant solely argues the
original view and criticizes the approval of evidence and the recognition of
facts, which is the privilege of the original instance.
We
cannot accept these arguments.
Therefore, in accordance with Arcitcles
401, 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Law, we unanimously decide as the
main text of the judgment.
(This translation is
provisional and subject to revision.)
(The copyright for this
English material was assigned to the Supreme Court of Japan by Institute of Intellectual Property.)